Kingdom Warlord was a Blast

[Paul T. Mitchell]

Timothy A. McDaniel wrote:
> 
> Sir Burke wrote:
> > This type of tourney works ok when you have a King or Prince to
> > choose the victor from the combatants.  However if there is no royal
> > figure to choose the winner the roling snowball tourney is best as
> > there is a winner.
> 
> In period, didn't the ladies judge the tourney and choose men (one or
> more) to honor?
> 
> Is it off-topic for the Ansteorran list to ask why *in general* there
> has to be one (1) winner in a tourney?  I suspect it's often an axiom:
> you may choose to believe it or not, and see what results you get.
> (One of *my* axioms is that *other things being equal* period is
> better, so which would argue against having one winner.)
> 
> Of course, I exclude cases such as this where the object of a tourney
> *is* specifically to choose one person: Crown tourney and warlord
> tourneys, as examples.
> 
> Daniel de Lincoln
> --
> Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at crl.com

Certainly not off-topic!

Sir Conor has looked and found no basis in history for non-fighters
judging tournies.  Not saying it didn't happen, but he didn't find
it.  

For myself, I much prefer to have judged tournies judged by fighters.

I've seen many tournies in which multiple fighters were honored.  I
doubt the winner of this coming Sunday's Ladies' Tourney in Elfsea
will get all the prizes I have to give out, either, even though I
expect it to be a standard double-elim format.  But I like having
a prize for winning among the rest; it's something that's not
subjective.

- Galen of Bristol
-- 
Paul T. Mitchell - pmitchel at flash.net
http://www.flash.net/~pmitchel 
"When the money keeps rolling in, you don't ask how."
     - Tim Rice, _Evita_